Talk:Dana Loesch
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dana Loesch article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This is not new material and this was resurrected by Shaun King which he tweeted this out today to attack Dana Loesch and tie her to the newspaper shooting. What's the significance? Shaun King selectively cropped out parts of her interview with the NRA person.
This material has always been out. The reason for the edit is that it was "resurfaced" but it never was hidden from public view. Why is it significant now? It's not. November 23, 2016 for example. Why now? Are we going to start inserting every unrelated event to Dana Loesch and then blame her everytime? It's irrelevant to the body and inserts a POV since the edit that I removed massively crops her interview to portray her negatively. ViriiK (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- It is interesting that it would come up now, when Loesch has no apparent connection to the Capital Gazette shooting (at least not one that's publicly disclosed). That being said, she did say it, it certainly seems noteworthy, and the story has now been picked up by multiple reliable news outlets. In fact, the curb stomping quote made it into the reliable news media even before the shooting [1], so it could have been added here earlier. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- (And to be perfectly clear, my parenthetical isn't to implicate Loesch in the shooting, but it would be interesting if the shooter turned out to be a member of the NRA or whatnot. But that's pure what-if on my part.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Residence edit
Should we include the town where Loesch lives, citing this source? As far as I know we routinely include where a subject lives, as long as it's verifiable. Of course she's a public figure. Of course we respect people's privacy, but it's not like we're publishing her street address. (Street addresses are covered by WP:BLPPRIVACY.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- In general, I think including the city of where the subject lives is fine. I'm concerned about the particular reference that is used which includes details such as photos of the inside of the subject's home. This is particularly of concern for someone connected to an organization that is as publicly reviled as the NRA and for someone who is personally the target of much online vitriol. I looked for an alternate source to support the information, and found this source that says Loesch has sold the Southlake home. Therefore the question appears to be moot, because the information is no longer accurate anyway. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- No they moved from one home in Southlake to another. The SF Gate source is about the sale of the first house after the recent move. I don't see the privacy issues with the photos. They're staged with no personal belongings or information. The street address and sale price are available through public records anyway. (I downloaded the deed just to confirm it's possible.) Regarding security, the property is gated and I'm sure they have plenty of additional security. Besides I'd be very, very surprised if the story and the photos weren't published with the Loesches' permission. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Philando Castile justified? edit
Should probably mention how she treated Cliven Bundy as a hero.199.247.44.139 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Dawes Rolls edit
The article claims that she has an ancestor on the Dawes Rolls, but I don't see any reference to this in the sources. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)